should be baptized—he writes that we err abominably, and that there is not a tittle that forbids infant baptism, &c.
Inasmuch as he so willfully and violently contends against the Lord and his truth, and since he in various ways seeks to give his cause a fine appearance by the use of many borrowed words, lies, conjectures, and perversion of the Scriptures, and says that we err abominably, &c., therefore I would briefly state: That if he can at any time prove to us by the unadulterated, divine Scriptures and truth, that John the Baptist practiced infant baptism any where; or that it was commanded of Christ and taught and practiced by the apostles; or, that it was, through the ordinance of the Lord, gradually practiced upon children, as he writes it was; or, that bringing to him is called ed baptism and baptism bringing to him, in the Scriptures; or, that Christ and the apostles have baptized the children that were brought to them; or, that Christ baptized them with a spirit that was powerful in works (the Spirit of God is never idle); or, that small children have faith, or that they are penitent, that they bury their sins and are circumcised through faith and thereby arise with Christ in newness of life; or, that circumcision is called baptism, and baptism circumcision; or, that they have the answer of a good conscience; or, that baptism, anywhere in the Scriptures, is called a sign of the covenant of grace, a sealing of the promise, and an incorporation into the church, or that unconscious children speak with tongues as the believing members of the house of Cornelius did, of whom Peter says, "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" Acts 10: 47, or, that the true, primitive church practiced it by the apostolic doctrine, usage, or command; or, that God is powerful through works which he has not ordained, then we will lay aside our pen, repent, and confess before the whole world that our cause is mere deceit, and nothing but falsehood, in this respect.
But if he cannot do so, as it is impossible for him to do, then I would faithfully admonish and fraternally beseech him to consider earnestly and thoroughly how shamefully he reflects on God, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, John the Baptist, and the apostles, in this matter of infant baptism; how lamentably he adulterates the plain Scriptures and deceives the poor souls; what gross falsehoods he teaches the poor people; how deceitfully he teaches the accursed abomination and passes it for a holy, glorious work; and also, how unjustly he accuses us of abominably erring, we, who clearly have on our side Christ's plain word, the apostolic doctrine and usage, the signification of baptism, and the usage of the true, primitive churches; while he cannot show by a single word of all the Scriptures, that his infant baptism has any foundation in the ordinance and command of God. My faithful reader, beware; fear God; act justly; search the Scriptures; shun falsehood and follow the truth.
Again, by undertaking to draw the saying of Paul, "That if any would not work, neither should he eat," into his argument, he contradicts himself, and is unworthy of a reply. For, as Paul thereby commands the idlers and busy-bodies to earn their own bread by honorable labor, lest they become an offense, and troublesome to others, and since such cannot apply to children, therefore such labor was not thereby commanded them. Neither does Paul say, he who does not work, &c., as Gellius writes; but he says, "If any would not work, neither should he eat." So, too, baptism is not commanded to be practiced on unconscious children, but it is commanded in the Scriptures to be practiced upon those who believe the word of the Lord, lead a penitent life and who have a sound understanding and comprehension of baptism, as has been said several times.
In the sixteenth place he writes, "That in Christ Jesus no respect of persons or time is made. For the glory of the kingdom of Christ is not limited to any cities, times, or persons; so, neither to any age nor generation."
Answer. Herewith, if I understand it, he would assert that, although, according to his assertion, baptism has taken the place of circumcision, and the males only were circumcised in Israel, that notwithstanding this, both males and females are to be baptized, now, be they believers' children, and
